Corrosion Resistance Properties of Porous Alumina–Mullite Ceramic Membrane Supports
Source abstract
Abstract
Cost‐effective macroporous alumina–mullite membrane supports are fabricated by sintering coarse α‐alumina and colloidal silica, using cornstarch as the foaming agent at 1550 °C for 2 h in air atmosphere. To evaluate the corrosion resistance of such membrane supports, the corrosion behaviors of the supports before and after corroding in the H2SO4 and NaOH solutions (80 °C) are systematically investigated. Interestingly, with increasing Al2O3/SiO2 ratio, the support presents numerous alumina grains and little glass phases, resulting in excellent corrosion resistance especially in acidic media. Benefiting from the alumina grains and little glass phases among the grain boundaries, lower mass loss, less variations in pore size and porosity, high residual strength, and an almost unchanged gas flux are obtained for a higher Al2O3/SiO2 ratio support. The porous support, herein, is suitable for microfiltration membranes used in harsh environments.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced ceramic materials synthesis · Magnesium Oxide Properties and Applications · Concrete and Cement Materials Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Materials Science and Engineering South China University of Technology Guangzhou 510641 China
School of Environment and Civil Engineering Dongguan University of Technology Dongguan 523808 China
College of Materials Science and Engineering Shenzhen University Shenzhen 518055 China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2013.09.02910.1016/j.ceramint.2013.09.029 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.desal.2016.06.03210.1016/j.desal.2016.06.032 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.cattod.2017.05.08910.1016/j.cattod.2017.05.089 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.desal.2017.07.02310.1016/j.desal.2017.07.023 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.03.03210.1016/j.ceramint.2019.03.032 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.03.25910.1016/j.ceramint.2018.03.259 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.crci.2018.09.01410.1016/j.crci.2018.09.014 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.matchar.2011.01.01210.1016/j.matchar.2011.01.012 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.matlet.2014.12.08210.1016/j.matlet.2014.12.082 ↗
10. 10.1111/ijac.1305310.1111/ijac.13053 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.corsci.2007.10.00810.1016/j.corsci.2007.10.008 ↗
12. 10.1023/A:102671421852210.1023/A:1026714218522 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.memsci.2007.06.05810.1016/j.memsci.2007.06.058 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.07.20510.1016/j.ceramint.2018.07.205 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2009.12.01110.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2009.12.011 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.02410.1016/j.ceramint.2016.06.024 ↗
17. Wu D. C. · J. Ceram. Process. Res. · 2013 · 14 · 677
18. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.281.24210.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.281.242 ↗
19. 10.1007/s10934-008-9258-z10.1007/s10934-008-9258-z ↗
20. 10.1016/j.clay.2007.12.00110.1016/j.clay.2007.12.001 ↗
21. 10.1111/j.1744-7402.2009.02443.x10.1111/j.1744-7402.2009.02443.x ↗
22. 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.10510.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.105 ↗
23. 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1997.tb03258.x10.1111/j.1151-2916.1997.tb03258.x ↗
24. 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb04304.x10.1111/j.1151-2916.1991.tb04304.x ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.01.23410.1016/j.ceramint.2019.01.234 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.12.08210.1016/j.ceramint.2019.12.082 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2018.12.04610.1016/j.jallcom.2018.12.046 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.06.01210.1016/j.ceramint.2019.06.012 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ceramint.2016.09.00910.1016/j.ceramint.2016.09.009 ↗